# Why does the United Negro College fund feel the need to lie so egregiously? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 7, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018 "2009-06-07T16:15:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/181 "2009-06-08T18:23:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, we all (or at least all of us that are reasonable) can agree that the list is false, I would call it misleading, rather than false, in that I’m reasonably certain that African-American inventors were granted patents for all the items listed in the ad, but misleading in that the ad seems to imply that African-Americans were the original inventors of all of the concepts listed, which, in at least some of the cases, is not true. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weird\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@The\_Weird\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weird_One)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/182 "2009-06-08T18:34:54Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > So what is it? Is it that black African-Americans have made a relatively big contribution to inventions or is it that they have been victims of poor education which has prevented them from being as productive as they could have been? Because it cannot be both. > [@sailor](#): > > It is contradictory to argue simultaneously that (1) group X contributed (proportionally) as much as any other group and that (2) the reason they did not contribute proportionally was that they were oppressed or whatever. You cannot defend both without contradiction. It’s really not at all clear what argument you’re arguing against. Is the subject the quantity of inventions/literary works or their importance/quality? Do you include all inventions/literary works, or only those of American origin, or do you use some other qualifier? When you say “relatively” and “proportionally,” to what do you refer? Relative to the number of educated women/African-Americans, or to the number of inventions/literary works by white men, or something else? Are you discussing all inventions/literary works ever made, or only those within a specific time frame, particularly since the opportunities to women and minorities widened dramatically in the 20th century. If someone were to argue that, prior to the mid-20th century, 50% of American inventions/literary works were made by African-Americans/women, then they would be wrong; however, I don’t see anyone making either of those arguments. The UNCF is trying, in a rather clumsy way, to point out that African-Americans have created or improved upon many important inventions. Nowhere in that ad are they making any argument about the quantity or quality of innovations by African-Americans relative to Whites (or any other ethnic group), nor do they make any statement about past injustices. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/183 "2009-06-08T18:44:10Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > There aren’t ad editors? Sorry, someone is going to accuse me of “moving goal posts” but I guess I just used the wrong term. When I said editors I meant some sort of oversight. Generally, no. Publications may be careful with _placement_ of ads (so as not to put an ad for chainsaws on the same page as a story about a murder committed with a chainsaw), but the artwork is generally submitted in final form, and the ad manager at the newspaper will give them a cursory glance to make sure there’s nothing that will get the paper in trouble. If you submit an ad claiming that your product was patented by an African American named Rufus P. Thudpucker in 1832, they will not verify that fact. They’re not being _paid_ enough to verify the claims in the ads. The only time a newspaper or magazine will pull an ad (generally speaking) is if they are notified by someone else that it’s false advertising; if it violated editorial policy (e.g., _Ranger Rick_ magazine won’t run ads for Viagra); or if the management of the publication anticipates trouble with it. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/184 "2009-06-08T19:05:13Z")
> [@Dorothea\_Book](#): > > But I simply don’t get the emotional outrage and utter lack of generosity that this kind of thing induces in some people. It’s as though they feel somehow personally threatened and diminished by a misrepresentation of someone else’s achievements. > > I find that sad… Oh, I wasn’t upset with the ad because of anything relating to the point it was trying to make (that black inventors have contributed immensely to all kinds of technology.) What annoyed me about the ad was the linguistic chicanery of it. I think they should have worded it differently instead of being extremely disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/185 "2009-06-08T19:11:23Z")
I think African-Americans are quite capable of recognizing patronizing bullshit when they see it. I have no doubt that the majority of them will treat this silly list with the contempt it deserves. They don’t need dumb lists to make them feel the equal of any white man. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/186 "2009-06-08T19:19:56Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Oh, I wasn’t upset with the ad because of anything relating to the point it was trying to make (that black inventors have contributed immensely to all kinds of technology.) What annoyed me about the ad was the linguistic chicanery of it. I think they should have worded it differently instead of being extremely disingenuous. I didn’t specifically have you in mind in that post **Argent Towers** and though I could if you wish it, I’d rather not comment on how you might have made your OP less likely to result in Pit thread. I too think that the ad should have been worded differently. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/187 "2009-06-08T19:52:06Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > It is contradictory to argue simultaneously that (1) group X contributed (proportionally) as much as any other group and that (2) the reason they did not contribute proportionally was that they were oppressed or whatever. You cannot defend both without contradiction. But I think you miscast the argument. I would suggest: (1) Women contributed _more than you think they did_ to the body of literature, and (2) the reason they did not contribute _proportionally_ was that they were not given the opportunity to do so. > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I would call it misleading, rather than false, in that I’m reasonably certain that African-American inventors were granted patents for all the items listed in the ad, but misleading in that the ad seems to imply that African-Americans were the original inventors of all of the concepts listed, which, in at least some of the cases, is not true. A fair point, to be sure. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/188 "2009-06-08T19:58:00Z")
It seems one cannot win for losing. If I had said that inventions by black African-Americans are a small number compared to those by whites someone would immediately jump on me because they are a minority when compared to whites and so one would expect lower number of inventions. If I qualify that by saying “relative” or “proportionately” then it seems the post is too complex for some to parse. The ad seems to imply or suggest (at least to me) that black African-Americans are, as a group, good inventors, prolific inventors. Compared to what? As has been pointed out the list is totally misleading. On top of that, do members of that group excel at inventing or are they below other groups? If they are below other groups why post a misleading ad suggesting otherwise? You cannot argue that blacks invent more than others and at the same time explain that they invent less for certain explanatory reasons. Either they invent more or they invent less. Which one is it? > [@Dorothea\_Book](#): > > But I simply don’t get the emotional outrage and utter lack of generosity that this kind of thing induces in some people. It’s as though they feel somehow personally threatened and diminished by a misrepresentation of someone else’s achievements. > > I find that sad… What has generosity have to do with anything? We are dealing with facts. Things are either true or they are not true. Personally I find all this ridiculous and pathetic. Why does anyone get anything from believing a human of the same country or race did anything worthwhile? How does that reflect on that person at all? How does that person own any of the great deed? “I am from the great state of X! Land of the inventor of Y! Of the discoverer of Z!” So what? You can still be among the three biggest idiots of all time. To make it about race is even more distasteful. The only moment to bring out a list of black inventors is to counter someone who asserts black people cannot invent. Other than that it is as distasteful as a list of white inventors would be. And if on top of that it is so ridiculously flawed as the one we are discussing is then it _really_ backfires. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/189 "2009-06-08T20:04:19Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Not only that but it says African American, singular. It was just one really busy black guy who invented all that stuff. Hopefully the UNCF has money to send that copy editor back to college. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/190 "2009-06-08T21:40:59Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > You cannot argue that blacks invent more than others and at the same time explain that they invent less for certain explanatory reasons. Either they invent more or they invent less. Which one is it? Gosh, **sailor** , I don’t think I can explain better than I’ve already tried to do (along with some others). The purpose of the ad isn’t to say that blacks invent more or less than any other group. The purpose is simply to emphasize that _blacks have historically invented (as opposed to only doing kinds of work that don’t require intellect)_. Unfortunately, the stereotype of blacks as intellectually inferior, folks who are good at things like manual labor and sports but not at scientific invention, does persist. However, hamfistedly the ad tries to combat this long-lingering stereotype by addressing a history of black invention. > [@](#): > > What has generosity have to do with anything? We are dealing with facts. Things are either true or they are not true. Right, and here an ad has presented something that is, at bottom, true (blacks have historically invented more things than most people realize) in a problematic way (by needlessly exaggerating the type and extent of invention described). Generosity comes in through a willingness to take context into account. Though African-Americans didn’t invent all of these things in the way that the ad implies, the point seems to be that blacks a hundred years ago were inventing things much more than most of us had realized. Unfortunately the ad came off all wrong because of some unnecessarily exaggerated language–doubtless intended for effect (rather than out of a malicious desire to lie or malign any other group such as whites). Some think the ad is therefore reprehensible or does a disservice to African-Americans. > [@](#): > > Why does anyone get anything from believing a human of the same country or race did anything worthwhile? How does that reflect on that person at all? How does that person own any of the great deed? That’s a more complicated question. I set nationality aside as being not really what’s issue here. So to answer the question: why does anyone get anything from believing that a person of their race did something worthwhile? Well, perhaps because it helps them to combat demoralizing feelings about the way their race has been portrayed and, thus, to overcome negative stereotypes. OTOH I don’t think the primary audience for the ad was intended to be blacks. So the question I think you really want to ask is this: what does any white person (or Asian person, or Latina person, etc.) get from learning that African-Americans invented more things in the past than they may have realized. The answer: a more accurate picture of the world in which they live and a greater sense of how some people of a minority race have contributed to that world. Maybe you already knew everything there was to know about the history of black inventions in the twentieth century just as maybe you already knew about women’s contribution to literature. But my sense is that these topics are actually quite new to you. It’s always nice when we can relax the feeling when we are confronting some new idea that someone is trying to force us into acknowledging a claim on behalf of some other race or sex–as though we were guilty a party in need of reform. It’s nice, in other words, to drop the defensive stance and simply learn something about the world. Admittedly the ad does a poor job of inviting you to do that. > [@](#): > > The only moment to bring out a list of black inventors is to counter someone who asserts black people cannot invent. Other than that it is as distasteful as a list of white inventors would be. So in other words the UNCF can’t try to combat a stereotype about race until some explicit racist comes out into the open and challenges them on this very topic? Not only does that put an impossible burden on those trying to combat racial prejudice, it also is unrealistic about the nature of advertising. (Should Pepsi only tell me about the joys of the their product if I explicitly write to them and ask them which is the best cola? Maybe, but I’m not holding my breath for an ad-free world.) > [@](#): > > And if on top of that it is so ridiculously flawed as the one we are discussing is then it _really_ backfires. I agree about the backfire part. It would be interesting to know how effective this ad has been in raising money for UNCF. ---
**Author:** ![Hippy\_Hollow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hippy_hollow/32/4841_2.png) [@Hippy\_Hollow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hippy_Hollow)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/191 "2009-06-08T22:28:01Z")
The UNCF is in a precarious position. It is a fundraising source for an assortment of historically Black colleges and universities. In the early days, the UNCF could make a compelling case for giving by pointing to fact that the bulk of African Americans in college were at HBCUs. Since the late 1970s that percentage has dwindled. Now, upward of 80% of Black students attended predominantly White institutions (yes, that is a term used in the literature). So the compelling argument for the UNCF is greatly diminished. They have, of course, one of the all time greatest tag lines - “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.” I think this ad is trying to reintroduce that famous message with the innovator angle. I do think it’s implied that these products were invented but of course, that word is never used. So it’s a little misleading, or at least missing some helpful information. I also don’t think it’s meant to be comparative. But I do think the vitriol leveled at the ad is quite misplaced. I don’t think they got the message quite right, but some folks seem quite het up about this, and I can’t imagine why. It’s not like an ad claiming to “enhance a certain part of the male anatomy.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/192 "2009-06-08T22:28:40Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > To make it about race is even more distasteful. The only moment to bring out a list of black inventors is to counter someone who asserts black people cannot invent. Other than that it is as distasteful as a list of white inventors would be. Yeah, I can’t imagine _why_ an organization dedicated to educating black people might want to bring up other educated black people. ---
**Author:** ![Sigmagirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c89c15/32.png) [@Sigmagirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sigmagirl)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/193 "2009-06-08T22:38:19Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Generally, no. Publications may be careful with _placement_ of ads (so as not to put an ad for chainsaws on the same page as a story about a murder committed with a chainsaw), but the artwork is generally submitted in final form, and the ad manager at the newspaper will give them a cursory glance to make sure there’s nothing that will get the paper in trouble. If you submit an ad claiming that your product was patented by an African American named Rufus P. Thudpucker in 1832, they will not verify that fact. They’re not being _paid_ enough to verify the claims in the ads. > > The only time a newspaper or magazine will pull an ad (generally speaking) is if they are notified by someone else that it’s false advertising; if it violated editorial policy (e.g., _Ranger Rick_ magazine won’t run ads for Viagra); or if the management of the publication anticipates trouble with it. Agreed. Newspapers are mostly concerned with classified ads that will get them sued for violations of Fair Housing (ads placed by people who practice discrimination against people of different races or religion, or especially against people with children), or violations of Equal Opportunity in employment ads and various other laws and ordinances. For an ad like that which the OP describes, the person who sells the ad space may well be the only person who lays eyes on it until it makes it into layout, as many ads are transmitted electronically. And with the “chainsaw” example, the person in the makeup department has to be on the ball to catch something like that; the editorial proofreaders may or may not. They are not accustomed to looking at ads. The ads are placed on the page first, and the news is dumped around it. The editors are told how much of a “news hole” they are allowed for the next edition, and adjust their copy to fit. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/194 "2009-06-08T22:43:49Z")
> [@Hippy\_Hollow](#): > > The UNCF is in a precarious position. It is a fundraising source for an assortment of historically Black colleges and universities. In the early days, the UNCF could make a compelling case for giving by pointing to fact that the bulk of African Americans in college were at HBCUs. Since the late 1970s that percentage has dwindled. Now, upward of 80% of Black students attended predominantly White institutions (yes, that is a term used in the literature). So the compelling argument for the UNCF is greatly diminished. I did not know that. I’d always assumed that the UNCF offered financial aid to _all_ black students. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/195 "2009-06-08T22:53:37Z")
Meh. Doesn’t bother me one way or another. And I do think the _attempted_ message is good. A simple revision would do. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/196 "2009-06-08T23:36:20Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > Well, that’s debatable. There were airships- including Zeppelins- in the air before the Wright Brothers, which had engines, and that’s not including New Zealander [Richard Pearse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse) who is widely believed (in NZ at least) to have flown a heavier-than-air craft before the Wrights. Yes, I always leave out the qualifier. They invented the first 3 axis controlled heavier than air machine. There seems to be an unending trail of brave souls intent on breaking the record for low altitude flight. If they were wealthy like Langly they paid people to fly their contraptions. I don’t often get mesmerized by inventors but the Wright Brothers were so far ahead of anybody else in actually understanding what they were doing. The wind tunnels and measuring equipment they invented were state of the art. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/197 "2009-06-09T00:17:37Z")
Actually, as I pointed out in the now-defunct **Teemings** issue #15, in “First Flight”, John Stringfellow built a steam engine that he used to power his _unmanned_ airplane in 1848, beating the Wrights, Pearse, and all other comers by a serious margin. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/198 "2009-06-09T00:22:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The vigor with which **tagos** and **Cisco** are defending this ridiculous list is really very funny. For whatever reason, neither seems to be able to simply say, “Yeah, while the motives were noble, the execution was poorly done, and the list is fairly characterized as false.” > > Now, we all (or at least all of us that are reasonable) can agree that the list is false, and I assume we all can also agree that, regardless of the falsity of the specifics on the list, the underlying message has a great deal of truth to it: for most of this country’s history, inventions or substantive innovations that came from people of color were not properly credited, and we would do well to remember that. I agree with your conclusions but I want to say that I, personally, have very limited (that is to say, exactly no) interest in exactly who invented a device that I routinely use. I have even less interest in the ethnicity or race or creed or color or gender or sexual orientation or hair color or eye color or age or any other characteristic one might think of of whomever gets the credit for inventing or improving the device in question. I doubt I am alone in this lack of interest. Should the government now cause a law to be passed requiring that each and every gizmo, thing, device, or whatever that is routinely sold and used in the USA be labeled with the information that I care nothing about? While the comments I have just made may be completely idiotic, so is, IMHO, this entire debate/argument. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/199 "2009-06-09T00:29:48Z")
> [@LouisB](#): > > While the comments I have just made may be completely idiotic, so is, IMHO, this entire debate/argument. And yet, here you are. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018/200 "2009-06-09T00:39:24Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > And yet, here you are. Yes, here I are. So the fuck what? I have as much right to read and post in an idiotic, stupid, pointless thread as do you. Why shouldn’t I? Others are doing the same. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-united-negro-college-fund-feel-the-need-to-lie-so-egregiously/499018.md?page=11)